


mwmm 



'& ; f\ifej+'<*k\md 



ft»ftfi8««AA 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



i 



iftft 



<&*. Wte£ i 



^L//:::. 



FED STATES OF AMERICA 



A*ft« 






.'CVWto 



W Y " ,H 






A AAA* 



Mn~i-vi\ 



^Aaa^wSoWW/JiI!^ . 



fl&LAAl 






AAAaAA 



^iliisi 



.Mfi/SwA'd; 



MWU 



WCfXtUii 



a^./^^A/>A^A^A/1^ 



IMP. 



SM^ 



siaAliilfli 



MM^h* 



THE ANSWER 



OF 



dEOROE THOMAS 



TO 



THE ATTACKS 



THE REV. NORMS M. JONES. 

I 



" And for a mantle, broad and large, 
He wrapt him in Religion!" 



st. mary's county, md. / fp 



1835. 



$**% 

y 



5. 



TO THE PUBLIC 



I will now redeem a pledge, which I made a short 
lime since when noticing a pamphlet, issued by the Rev. 
Norris M. Jones. And I am sure, that you will not re- 
quire any apology for my being obtruded before you, 
when you perceive, that I originally sought to avoid this 
necessity. To be thus constrained by the contumacious 
perseverance of an adversary, would at all times be to 
me a source of extreme regret •, but it is peculiarly so, 
when he professes to be a minister of the gospel. 

I appear before you now in self-defence ; in the capaci- 
ty of a farmer, claiming no privileges but those of a free- 
man, no consideration, but such as may be awarded to 
purity of purpose and uprightness of conduct. I boast not, 
as does the Rev. Norris M. Jones, of wealth on a canal, 
or elsewhere ; nor as he, or some proud peer, of " a long 
line of honored ancestors :" it was not thus that the A- 
postles sought to sustain their cause. And Satan's high 
station availed him nought : he fell ; and in the garden of 
Eden, was a reptile, and brought woe therein, before the 
eyes of our first parents were fully opened. 

That I have in some respects a self-approving con- 
science, I am willing to acknowledge. I feel a pleasure 
in the reflection, that I have never attempted to injure a 
correct and pious minister of the gospel; that 1 have nev- 
er slandered nor insulted an innocent female ; that I have 
never endeavoured to ruin the fortune and character of 
any individual ; that I have never attempted to make nor 



to widen a breach between neighbours ; that I have never 
attempted to deceive by letters, circuitously sent or ano- 
nymously written ; and in that I have always endeavoured 
to do unto others as I would they should do unto me. If 
this be pride, I have it in abundance ; and it raises me, in 
my own estimation, not above the level of the poorest 
man in society of upright principles, but to an immeasur- 
able height above him, who, by doing otherwise, sinks 
into deep degradation. 

The occurrences that have resulted from the coming 
of the Rev. Norris M. Jones to this county, I greatly la- 
ment. For the sake of religion, for the peace of society ; 
on account of the feelings of the Rev. Clergy, to whom 
the respect and gratitude of all are due, I sincerely de- 
plore them. But, as amongst the Apostles, there was a 
Judas Iscariot ; so, among the Rev. Clergy, there is a 
Norris M. Jones. 

Unwilling as I am to trace, or even look upon the hi- 
deous lineaments of his character, it is an alternative 
which I cannot avoid ; and I will presently commence with 
them in the order in which they have presented them- 
selves since his introduction among us ; but must first 
make a slight review of the correspondence between 
us, and especially of the letter which he has published, 
bearing date after I informed him, that no communication 
between us should ever again exist. 

As those letters have been brought by him before the 
public, it will be unnecessary for me to have them re- 
printed. From them it will appear that his first letter to 
me was returned without comment ; that he addressed to 
me a second letter, wherein he says : " Were my situa- 
tion in life other than it is, I should not have troubled 



you in this manner on the subject;" and further, that 
"a clergyman's hands are tied :" which language im- 
plies, that he would inflict upon me personal chastisement 
or challenge me to mortal combat, were he not restrained 
by ministerial shackles. And as I believed, that to one 
who entertained such sentiments, the badges of office 
could be of no spiritual advantage, I replied, that as his 
cloak seemed to be of but little service to him at that 
time, he could easily cast it aside. 

In the same letter he remarks, that " a clergyman is 
placed on the same footing with a lady ; and that the same 
opinion is entertained by every high-minded man of him 
who would traduce or insult the former, as of him who 
would traduce or insult the latter. In both cases, the 
traducer escapes, merely from the fact of the inability of 
the parties injured to punish him." The only correct 
version of this language, it seemed to me, was, that a 
clergyman's cloak is to protect him from censure, be- 
cause he cannot call to account the man, who sees cause 
for reproof. Yet, when in my reply I remarked, that it 
was difficult for an honorable man to protect himself, pro- 
perly, from the malice of a being, who studies to insult, 
while he meanly claims the privileges and impunity of a 
female, and seeks to shelter himself under a vestment, 
which has been, perhaps, too kindly conferred on him; 
he denies, that he ever claimed any such protection or 
impunity, or that any such sentiment is contained in his 
letter. 

He asserts, that men will do at one time what they 

will not do at another ; or in other language, that they 

will make a statement at one time, which they will deny at 

another. Such an opinion may be true, as regards men 

1* 



destitute of principle; but it has ever been my belief, 
that a high-minded, honorable man will not state a fact at 
one time, which he will not reassert at all times : and an 
opposite sentiment from a minister of the gospel, is not 
well calculated to strengthen our confidence in him as a 
man or a divine. 

In one of his letters Mr. Jones proposed to submit the 
matter of dispute between us to the decision of three gen- 
tlemen, whom he named ; and affected to think, that this 
was simply his denial of a statement, made by me of a 
conversation that had occurred between us some time be- 
fore. But as that was not the only cause of my unfavour- 
able opinion of him ; and as there were many charges 
against him, I supposed, that the most proper course for 
him, would be to submit his character to a court of enqui- 
ry. I had not the least objection to the three gentlemen, 
whom he named; but, as I believed that they would not 
consent to sit as a court of enquiry, in such a case; and 
as Mr. Jones had been employed in the "All Faith" par- 
ish, and wished again to obtain the Rectorship thereof, 
I regarded the vestry of that parish as the most conve- 
nient and proper tribunal to try him ; and therefore made 
that proposition to him, but with a proviso, that he should 
not attempt to recover in a civil action damages for any 
thing, that might be there advanced against him : which 
stipulation I considered necessary, as he had brought suit 
against Mr. Slye, for the purpose of silencing him and 
others. This proposition he rejected, and pronounced it 
unreasonable; because, he said, it would be giving a 
'" carte blanche to every unprincipled man in the county, 
to utter whatever lies his conscience would allow him to 
swear to." Such a reproach upon the integrity and hon- 



our of the citizens of our county ought to have been with- 
held by Mr. Jones. It is true, that many of them are poor 
and unlettered; but they are generally as honest, indus- 
trious, and mindful of the truth as the citizens of any oth- 
er part of the country. Besides, if Mr. Jones had acced- 
ed to my proposition, and had been acquitted of the charg- 
es preferred against him, he might have again become the 
Rector of the parish : and on the other hand, had he 
been convicted by the vestry, he could have appealed to a 
higher tribunal; he could have had a specification of 
charges, which he could have laid before the standing 
committee. But, he wished, it would seem to force from 
me a specification of them by letter, and as I did not think 
it incumbent upon me to furnish them, I did not choose to 
gratify him. Towards him, either tribunal was impartial ; 
and if persons could have been procured to swear away 
the character of a minister of the Gospel before the vestry, 
surely the same could have been procured to swear it 
away before the Standing Committee. Then why has he 
used so much cunning and perseverence in forcing his let- 
ters upon me ? 

The correctness of my interpretation of his threat to 
publish, he denies and criticises. Without any instruc- 
tions from him in lexicography, every man of common 
sense can, from the tenor of his letter, place a proper con- 
struction on the clause alluded to. The clause is this : 
" Your conduct shall be published wherever you or I are 
known." It is not to be presumed, that he intended to go 
to Harvard College, from which he was dismissed; nor to 
Maine, where, perhaps, he is quite as well known as he 
now is here ; nor yet to Scotland, where I do not doubt 
that some old acquaintance would be glad to recognise 



8 

him. It is not to be presumed, that he intended to go 
wherever he or I were known, for the purpose of making 
oral, or exhibiting written statements. Moreover, my in- 
terpretation is further corroborated by the fact, that in the 
last letter which he published, he admits, that he had 
" publicly expressed on various occasions a resolution to 
print ;" and, that, to his certain knowledge, I was ac- 
quainted with his having thus expressed himself two 
months before its date. And as he threatened in his let- 
ter to publish, and soon afterwards expressed to some of 
his friends a determination to print, these circumstances 
abundantly prove, that he wilfully denies the plain im- 
port of his own language. 

Upon his remark, that Mrs. Jones is insulted by my 
professions of friendship for her in my last letter to him, 
I will observe, that I do not doubt, that this amiable lady 
feels the unpleasantness of her situation, and endeavours 
to reconcile herself to it with the most laudable resigna- 
tion : and further, that he cannot believe, that his conduct 
is sanctioned by her in heart, whatever may be her pru- 
dent course with regard to it: and as to the charge of my 
having outraged her feelings, it is fully falsified by cir- 
cumstances — for if his hands be tied, she has honourable, 
high-minded brothers, who would not brook an insult of- 
fered to a sister ; and who, if occasion should ever re- 
quire them to protect her against him or any one else, 
would not be found wanting in the discharge of their du- 
ty. By his intimating that I subscribed but ten dollars a 
year for his support, he evinces a most unwarrantable 
disregard of truth, and jeopards his claims to veracity. 
He might easily have ascertained, that such was not the 
fact. (See Appendix, No. 15, certificate of Geo. G. Ash- 
com.) And,had he not been disposed to produce erroneous 



impressions on the mind of the public, he would not have 
omitted to inform them, that I was one of the largest con- 
tributors to the church in King and Queen parish, where- 
in I resided the greater part of my time. 

Why, but for effect, has he alluded to his long line of 
" honoured ancestors, extending back over two centuries ; 
men, who, during the whole of that period, have sustained 
the first standing in society ; men of education, wealth and 
influence ?" I had never attempted to detract a mite from 
the glory and merit of his ancestors : I knew them not. 
They may be a galaxy of worthies ; but their splendour 
can never be reflected by their degenerate descendant, 
nor can it dissipate his guilt. 

He has complained, " that I make him an offender for 
a word." It will be seen, that it is not for a word, but 
for many base transactions, that I consider him a disgrace 
to the human race, and deem him unworthy to perform the 
sacred functions of a minister of the gospel. 

He announces, that I am the cause of the doors of "All 
Faith" church being closed ; at the same time, that he ac- 
knowledges, that I endeavoured to procure a minister in 
that parish. He says also, that ■" the church in this coun- 
ty is bleeding at every pore." It is, indeed, bleeding; 
but the only wound it has received, was inflicted by him- 
self; and that would 'ere now have been healed, had it not 
been for his repeated offences. 

The Rev. Mr. Mitchel is a gentleman, of whom every 
member of the parish has a most exalted opinion, as a 
man and divine ; and upon application being made to him, 
he expressed a willingness to undertake the Rectorship 
thereof, provided that no unforseen objections should oc- 
cur to his mind. The vestry obtained a subscription of 



10 

the amount necessary for his salary ; but whilst this was 
being done, Mr. Norris M. Jones, in a conversation with 
Mr, Mitchell, presented his own desires and expectations 
as an obstacle to Mr. Mitchell's acceptance : Thus it is 
seen, that Mr. Jones has thrown against me an imputation 
which recoils upon himself. (See Appendix No. 10, 
letter of Mr. Mitchell.) 

And not being permitted to officiate in any church in 
this parish, he has the consummate audacity to undertake 
to preach to me by letter: but, as well might the serpen- 
tine movements of Satan be mistaken for the direct course 
of an Angel, as the hypocrisy of Norris M. Jones for the 
true piety of a minister of the gospel. 

He reminds me of my state of health : But as to this, I 
can reply, that I fear not the machinations of any man. 

Having thus reviewed, as briefly as possible, the pam- 
phlet which he has published, I will now revert to his un- 
fortunate arrival among us. He is, I believe, a native of 
Pennsylvania, and was introduced to the vestry of All 
Faith parish, in this county, by a highly respectable cler- 
gyman of Baltimore. The vestry employed him as their 
Rector; and we received him with the hospitality due to 
a stranger ; and the respect, to which his official station 
seemed to entitle him. And our pleasure from the selec- 
tion by the vestry was increasing, before his real char- 
acter began to develope itself. But many of us, even 
then, were unwilling to consider him corrupt; and were 
disposed to attribute to the mind, and not to the heart, 
such improprieties as were at first revealed. As he had 
no family he was taken into the house of Mr. George Slye 
as a boarder. He expressed much satisfaction and con- 
tentment at his situation, though he was evidently at times 
looking around for a lady, who, by accepting him as a 



11 

husband, might furnish him with a home, which he could 
consider his own. It was, perhaps, partly with that view, 
and from an erroneous estimate of the disposition of the 
female sex in this part of the country, that he boasted of 
wealth, which no one believed him to possess; at a time 
too, when he was endeavouring to borrow money. Whe- 
ther the former was his chief object, or whether he was 
in hopes of being able to deceive some one, who had the 
means of lending, I cannot say ; but he asserted, that he 
had an estate on the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 
which was worth at that time twenty thousand dollars; 
and which, he expected, in a few years would yield him 
fifteen thousand per annum. (See Appendix, No. 1, Cer- 
tificate of John T. Hawkins — and No. 2, Letter of James 
E. Kilgour.) 

There had been a slight disagreement between Doct. 

Locke and Mr. M , two very respectable gentlemen 

of All-Faith parish. And one would suppose, that it ought 
to have been the wish of Mr. Jones, as their Rector, to 
close the breach between them ; but such was not the fact. 
At a wedding in the neighbourhood, where he was him- 
self employed to officiate, he took Mr. M out and in-* 

formed him, that Dr. Locke had told him, that he, Mr. 
M -j had seduced the daughter of Mr. W , form- 
erly a respectable resident of Charlotte-Hall. The indig- 
nation of Mr. M. was consequently much excited, and he 
expressed a determination to seek immediate redress; up- 
on which Mr. Jones endeavoured to dissuade him, saying, 
" that such a course would unavoidably involve him, his 
friend, the Rector of his parish, in his personal quarrels." 

And this argument had the effect of quieting Mr. M— 
for the time being ; and he and Mr. Jones remained there, 



n 

Ivhilst the company enjoyed themselves in conversation 
and dancing. On such an occasion did this persecuted 
man, this upright divine, choose to discharge the venom 
of his tongue. (See Appendix, No. 3, Letter of J. M. — .) 

And a long time afterwards, when I was riding with 
Mr. Jones from All Faith Church to my house, he ob- 
served to me. that he had been told by a gentleman once 
a vestryman of All Faith parish, then dead, that he had 
seen a letter, written to a gentleman once the Rector of 
All Faith parish, who was also dead, cautioning the latter 
against a certain man of the neighbourhood, who had ruin- 
ed the daughter of the writer of said letter — and that he, 

Mr. Jones, believed the letter writer was a Mr. W -, 

formerly of Charlotte Hall— mentioning the name in full, 
and the former occupation of the individual. After re- 
flecting for a while, I enquired of him, whether the Rev. 
Neale H. Shaw was the gentleman who received the let- 
ter, and the late Joshua Estep the vestryman alluded to ; 
and he replied in the affirmative. (See Appendix, No. 4, 
certificate of vestry of " All Faith" parish.) 

It is now necessary for me to notice a circumstance 
the occurrence of which may have led to important re- 
sults. During the stay of Mr. Norris M. Jones at Mr 
Slye's, Mr. Slye at one time had succeeded in collecting 
for a particular purpose, several hundred dollars, which 
he kept in a place considered very secure. About this 
period Mr. Slye received an anonymous letter, handed 
him by Mr. Jones, which Mr. Jones said came from the 
post-office at Charlotte Hall in an envelope, directed to 
himself from the Great Mill. This letter, dated St. Ini- 
goes, purported to be from " A Friend," inviting Mr. 
Slye to come to the Great Mill on a certain day on bu- 



IS 

siness, in which the writer assured him, that he, Mr. 
Slye, was deeply interested. Mr. Slye, being of an art- 
less, unsuspicious disposition, acceded to the invitation, 
and went to the Great Mill, a distance of thirty miles 
from home. He waited there for several days ; but the 
author of the letter did not make his appearance. At his 
return Mr. Jones interrogated him concerning the events 
of his journey. Mr. Slye gave him the information re- 
quested • and Mr. Jones remarked, that he would receive 
another letter shortly from the same person. And ac- 
cordingly the prediction was verified, and a similar letter, 
but more pressing in its invitation, was handed him by 
Mr. Jones, who made the same statement as before con- 
cerning the envelope and post-mark. Mr. Slye repeated 
his journey, and was again a dupe. Upon enquiry at the 
Great Mill he ascertained, that no such letter had been 
mailed at that office; and he was also informed by the 
post-master at Charlotte Hall, that no such letter had 
been received there by mail, nor, with his knowledge, 
presented or sent to Mr. Jones. A few weeks after Mr. 
Slye's return, Mr. Jones expressed a wish for some cider. 
This was kept in a locked room on the second floor of 
the dwelling, in which room was a portable writing desk, 
in which Mr. Slye had deposited his money. A small ser- 
vant girl was directed to draw the cider, and Mr. Jones 
proposed to go with her. Shortly after they came down 
with the cider, the barrel was discovered to be leaking, 
and Mr. Jones returned alone for the purpose of stopping 
it. The next morning Mr. Jones left home. On that 
day, during the absence of Mr. Jones, the desk was 
brought by a small boy from the garden, broken open 

and rifled of the money. After some consultation with 

2 



14 

Mr. Jones on his getting home, it was determined that 
the money must have been taken by one of Mr. Slye's 
house servants, and that she ought to be sold. Mr. Slye 
succeeded in disposing of her, and the amount of the pro- 
ceeds of the sale was by the recommendation of Mr. 
Jones taken into his, Jones', custody. Some time after- 
wards Mr. Jones went to the Patuxent and returned. In 
a few minutes after his return he gave Mr. Slye the un« 
pleasant intelligence, that the money, which he had en- 
trusted to him, had also been stolen, and from a book in 
an open book-case, into which he had put it. Mr. Slye 
was considerably disturbed. Mr. Jones told him, that if 
he would say nothing about the last occurrence, he would 
give him his note for the amount of the two sums he had 
lost. I do not know, that Mr. Slye ever intimated a sus- 
picion, that Mr. Jones was the thief; but afterwards, he 
refused to subscribe to him as the minister of the parish. 
(See Appendix, No. 4, Letter of George Slye — No. 6, 
Certificate of post-master at Great Mill — No. 7, certifi- 
cate of post-master at Charlotte Hall.) 

The above occurrences became known to a few per- 
sons — and, as Mr. Jones had been residing with Mr. 
Slye, it was desirable to some of the vestry, that the 
ground of Mr. Slye's refusal should be ascertained. — 
When called on by one or two of them in their private 
capacity, he declined giving a satisfactory reply, but still 
persisted in refusing to subscribe. Some of Mr. Jones' 
improprieties of conduct began now to be publicly talked 
of; and, as it was believed by the vestry, that Mr. Slye 
must be in possession of some important knowledge con- 
cerning him, they officially requested him to furnish the 
information. Mr. Slye appeared before them andaddu- 



15 

eed the charge of drunkenness. At this meeting, which 
was held particularly for the purpose of enquiring into 
certain things, affecting the character of Mr. Jones, one 
of the vestry, who had heard of the statement made by 
Mr. Jones to Mr. M at the wedding above mention- 
ed, interrogated Dr. Locke as to the truth of the state- 
ment. Dr. Locke, then on oath, promptly denied having 
made it. On the next day Mr. Jones attended in compli- 
ance with a request from the vestry, sent him the preced- 
ing evening; and on being informed of Dr. Locke's denial, 
he reiterated the charge, and said he was willing to 
swear to it. I had, myself, before this time, resided 
during the winter on one of the extreme borders of All- 
Faith parish, and during the summer in a different parish ; 
and few of the rumours concerning Mr. Norris M. Jones 
had reached my ears. But shortly after the meeting a- 
bove referred to, I was at the house of a friend in the 
neighborhood, in company with four of the vestrymen, 
and received intelligence of what had transpired at the 
meeting. Mr. Jones' conduct excited in my mind great 
astonishment. My impressions concerning him I could 
not conceal ; and, feeling an interest in All Faith parish, 
and the cause of religion, I freely expressed them. I al- 
so made known my determination not again to subscribe 
to him as Rector. I then, for the first time, related the 
conversation which had occurred between Mr. Jones and 
myself, in which he alluded to the alledged seduction of 

Miss W , as above mentioned. (See Appendix, No. 

8, Certificate of Messrs. A., H., K. and S.) These cir- 
cumstances having become known, and Mr. Jones finding 
himself in difficulties, he called on me afterwards at All 
Faith church, and after endeavouring to excite in me 



charitable feelings towards himself, he denied my state- 
ment of the conversation. I gave him to understand, that 
my opinion of him had been formed some time before, and 
that I had commented freely on his conduct before some 
of his vestry. (For these comments see Appendix, No. 
8, Certificate of J. T. H., G. G. A., J. E. K. and J. H. S.) 
Before this interview at "All Faith" church, the veil 
had been lifted from many of his acts. It was known 
that at a certain convention he had endeavoured to de- 
preciate the Rev. Mr. Mithell, one of our most worthy, 
upright and pious ministers of the gospel, for the purpose 
of supplying the place he held in the Standing Committee 
by the ^appointment of his brother, Clement Jones, who 
resided in this county at the time ; and although he par- 
tially succeeded in his designs, he was doomed to en- 
counter disappointment : for he failed to remove Mr. Mit- 
chell, or to have his brother elected. The Rev. Mr. 
Mitchell, among native Marylanders, could not be injur- 
ed. But Mr. Jones felt his teeth a little blunted by the 
file and became chagrined. He determined to make an- 
other attempt to infix his fangs, but they snapped in the 
effort. Who that knows not Norris M. Jones, could be- 
lieve, that he charged this most excellent divine with 
having entered with a false key the closet of Mr. Clem- 
ent Jones, and with having read the papers and stolen the 
wine which were kept therein. Such a charge was, how- 
ever, privately brought, and should consign to perpetual 
ignominy the base slanderer by whom it was preferred.— 
(See Appendix, No. 5, Letter of Mr. George Slye.) — 
And as to other attempts of this high born saint to injure 
the Rev. Mr. Mitchell, I will merely refer you to the 
certificates of Major Hawkins and the Rev. Mr. Laird. 



17 

(See Appendix, No. 1, Certificate of John T. Hawkins? 
and No. 9, Certificate of Rev. F. H. L. Laird.) The ve- 
ry act that he imputes to the Rev. Mr. Mitchell, as hav- 
ing occurred in Baltimore, was one which he himself, 
alone, had committed. It may be also seen by a reference 
to the certificate of the Rev. Mr. Laird, (See Appendix, 
No. 9,) that he inconsiderately vaunted before his mar- 
riage, that he was about to achieve a glorious victory 
over the relatives of his intended wife. From the same 
certificate it will appear, that whilst he and the Rev. Mr. 
Laird were together at a private house in this county ,he in- 
formed Mr. Laird that he had seen a letter from Mr. 

W , in which he had employed language against Mr. 

M , that would have been sufficiently severe, if Mr, 

M had ruined both the wife and daughter of the wri- 
ter of it; and, that he, Mr. Jones, expressed his belief, 
that Mr. M had seduced the daughter. This con- 
duct of Mr. Jones' happened after he had read the letter 
to which he alluded, and after having acknowledged to 
the gentleman, who at his request had given him a personal 
view of it, that it contained nothing from which such an 
inference could be drawn. (See Appendix, No.ll, Cer- 
tificate of Dr. Joseph F. Shaw.) Fortunately that letter 
is yet in existence, and contains nothing implicating the 
moral character of any one. Thus it appears that at one 
time he gives Dr. Locke as the author of the above slan- 
der ; at another, Mr. Joshua Estep, and, at length, incurs 

the sole responsibility himself. Mr. M - is known to 

be a most correct, intelligent and amiable man. Mr. 
Jones expressed to him at the wedding before referred to, 
a, belief of his innocence •> he admitted to me at our last 
2* 



18 

interview at All Faith church, that he had ascertained 
that the charge was groundless ; and, yet, he persevered 
in his fiend-like efforts to destroy the character and hap- 
piness of Mr. M. His illiberal, unjust and over bearing 
conduct towards Dr. Charles Briscoe, one of our most 
estimable citizens,the cousin of Mrs. Jones, stands too in 
bold relief. (See Appendix, No. 12, Letter of Norris 
M. Jones to Dr. Briscoe — and No, 13, Letter of Dr. 
Briscoe to Geo. Thomas.) Further evidence of the false- 
hood and hypocrisy of Norris M. Jones, and his destitu- 
tion of principle, will be found in other letters and certifi- 
cates contained in the Appendix. 

When such evidence became known to me, I could 
no longer countenance Mr. Jones f And I amongst oth- 
ers, became unwilling that he should be employed as 
Rector in the parish, as rumours increased upon us like 
the gathering of a storm. Mr. Jones at length became 
enraged, and I have been one, against whom he has been 
most anxious to wreak his vengeance. He wrote me a 
letter, which I returned to him without comment — for I 
wished to have no communication with him, and had no 
desire concerning him, except that he might not interfere 
with me, nor All Faith parish, of which he had ceased to 
be Rector. With respect to the letters received by Mr. 
Slye, I have not suggested, nor do I now say, that Mr. 
Jones was the author of them ; but it will be seen by his 
correspondence with me, that he can be and is guilty of 
tricks in writing. I received from him a second letter, 
dated Savona, his present place of residence, and not 
mailed at Chaptico, his nearest post-office, and within a 
mile of his house, but at Leonardtown, which is fifteen 



19 

miles distant. This letter I replied to, and he rejoined. 
In his rejoinder he threatened to publish me, and I, of 
course, for the time, proceeded no further. Three 
months passed over, and no publication appeared ; but in- 
stead of it, I received from him another letter, mailed at 
Newport. I then wrote to him and concluded by say- 
ing, that no farther communication from him would be re- 
ceived. Notwithstanding this, there was afterwards 
brought from the Chaptico post-office, a package directed 
to me in Norris M. Jones' hand writing, not mailed, but 
marked 5 oz., 2 dollars. The mailing of those letters, 
and the marking of that package, and his own acknowledg- 
ment in his pamphlet evidently show, that, although / 
have not received an anonymous letter from him, he can 
descend to tricks; and it is not known to what extremes 
he is capable of going. 

Many things concerning him I here pass over; but I 
must now advert to another important circumstance con- 
cerning him. His conduct to the late Rev. Neale H. 
Shaw, would alone have been sufficient to have deprived 
him of the rectorship of All-Faith parish, had it have 
been generally known. That venerable old gentleman, 
with an irreproachable character, had toiled from early 
manhood in the service of the community. At an ad - 
vanced age he retired, feeble and infirm, into the solitude 
of his family. Being, however, the only clergyman in 
the parish with full orders, he occasionally exerted his 
little remaining strength to administer consolation at the 
bed of a dying friend. From the performance of this 
office, Mr. Norris M. Jones, who was at that time but a 
deacon, most unaccountably sent him an injunction to de- 
sist. (See Appendix, No. 14,— Letter of Dr. Joseph F. 



20 

Shaw.) At another period, when this Rev. old gentle- 
man was borne down by sickness and pain, and was be- 
lieved by all to be lingering but for a while on the brink 
of the grave, Mr. Norris M. Jones entered his house — 
Was it to dry the tears of a weeping family, or to soothe 
the feelings of a departing minister of the gospel ? Dr. 
Shaw's letter in the Appendix informs us that such was 
not his object ; but that, without the slightest plausible 
pretext, he most grossly insulted the old gentleman and 
his family. Are we to be silent about such conduct ? — 
Are we to believe, with Mr. Norris M. Jones in his fa- 
mous slander sermon, that the scribes and pharisees cal- 
uminated the woman, whom they brought before our 
Saviour, (St. John, viii. 4.) because the Saviour indirect- 
ly informed them, that the law of Moses was not to be 
put in force against her? Are we to close our eyes, our 
ears, our lips, with regard to such things, for fear of an 
action q-f slander being brought against us ? No ! God 
forbid ! For the good of society, for the sake of virtue, 
morality and religion — again we exclaim, God forbid ! — 
But, notwithstanding all his crimes, we willingly say to 
this "chief of sinners," "Go and sin no more." (St. Jno t 
viii. 11.) 

I have now performed a most unpleasant task : I have 
shown, that Mr. Norris M, Jones' denial of a conversa- 
tion, which occurred between him and myself, was not 
the first nor the sole cause of my objections to him; that 
our difference did not proceed from a mere word; that it 
was commenced by him; that I endeavored to avoid it; 
that by perseverance he forced his letters upon me; and, 
that, in self-defence, I have been compelled at length to 
adopt my present course. 

GEORGE THOMAS. 



APPENDIX. 



[No. 1.] 
Certificate of John T. Hawkins, Esq. 

I do hereby certify, that the Rev. Norris M. Jones told me a 
short time after he located himself in All-Faith Parish as Rec- 
tor, that he owned land binding on the Chesapeake and Dela- 
ware Canal,which at that time was worth twenty thousand dol- 
lars — and at the same time, or not long after, he remarked to 
me, that money was not his object in preaching, for he was 
able to live without it. That he applied to me twice to borrow 
money ; first, a short time after he settled in the Parish, and 
again a short time after Mr. George Slye lost money out of his 
house, informing me, he wanted it to pay a debt he owed Mr, 
Slye, as he, Mr. Slye, was in want, in consequence of a loss he 
had lately met with. I do further certify, that at a certain time, 
when on a visit with the said Rev Mr. Jones to Dr. Walter 
Briscoe, he used language to me greatly to the disparagement 
of the Rev. Mr. Mitchell. 

Given under my hand this 4th January, 1835. 

JOHN T. HAWKINS. 



[No. 2.] 

Letter of James E. Kilgour. 

January 23, 1835. 
Dear Sir, — I received yours of the 20th instant, and cheer- 
fully comply with your request. 1 heard the Rev. N. M. Jones 
shortly after he became Rector of All-Faith Parish, speak of 



Mis wealth, which consisted of a farm on the Chesapeake and' 
Delaware Canal, which he expected would yield him in a few 
years, an annual revenue of fifteen thousand dollars. 
I am, sir,, your ob't servant,. 

JAMES E. K1LGOUR. 
To Geo. Thomas, Esq. 



[Xo. 3.] 

Letter of Mr. J M- 



Charlotte Hall, Feb. 21, 1835. 

Dear Sir — You have requested my answer to the following 
interrrogatories, viz: 1st, Was Norris M. Jones in the habit of 
communicating things to myself and family, as coming from 
the late Dr. Locke and family — and do I know or have I rea- 
son to believe that he would directly ride to Dr. Locke's and 
tell him and family, all he had drawn from me and my fami- 
ly, by his exciting tales ? Also, whether 1 believe that the mis- 
understanding which existed between myself and Dr. Locke 
would not have subsided and our families have lived on terms 
of social intercourse, had it not been for the insidious and hy- 
pocritical course of N. M. Jones. 

2d. "Will I inform you when it was N. M. Jones told me that 
Dr. Locke had said to him that I, Mr. J. M., had seduced Miss 

W , and the remarks he made touching said slander; what 

opinion he expressed of Dr. Locke at the time, and whether he 
was, at the time, on terms of social intercourse with Dr. Locke 
and Family?" In reply to your first interrogatory, I state, that 
the Rev. Mr. Jones was a frequent and welcome visiter in my 
family, during his residence in All-Faith Parish ; that he was 
always received with cheerfulness and entertained with cordi- 
ality. My intercourse with him was of the most unreserved 
and confidential character. I esteemed him as my friend, as 
one with whom [might converse on my own personal and do- 



23 

mesiic affairs, without restraint and without disguise. A mis* 
understanding existed at this time between the late Dr. Locke 
and myself. Mr. Jones was intimate in both families, and has 
frequently represented Dr. Locke to me as my uncompromising 
enemy, as disposed on all occasions to injure me, and as par- 
ticularly anxious, by exhibiting me in an odious aspect, to in- 
duce him, Mr. Jones, to discontinue his visits to my family. 
These representations would naturally excite indignant feeling, 
and I have doubtless, on such occasions, retaliated in terms of 
excessive and even unjustifiable severity. I did not however 
for a moment suppose, nor did I know, until several months 
had elapsed, that every word thus spoken in confidence, was 
to be conveyed with the least possible delay, to the adverse par- 
ty. But such, I have been since assured by Dr. Locke him- 
self, was the constant practice of the Rev. gentleman. Whe- 
ther this practice became him as a herald of the gospel of peace 
and recpnciliation, and whether it was calculated to allay un- 
kind feeling or to perpetuate existing animosity between the 
two families, you are perfectly competent to decide. 

The communication alluded to in your second interrogatory 
was made to me in the year 1830 or 1831, by the Rev. Mr. 
Jones. After having stated what he had heard, and given Dr. 
Locke as his author, he avowed his entire and unqualified dis- 
belief of the slander, stated that he would not believe Dr. 
Locke on his oath, and that he had mentioned the charge made 
by him, not for the purpose of disquieting me, nor because he be- 
lieved me capable of perpetrating so flagrant a crime ; but from 
pure friendship, that I might be on my guard against the se- 
cret machinations of a malevolent and vindictive foe. If I had 
heretofore entertained any doubt of the extent of Dr. Locke's 
hostility to me, I could now doubt no longer. I announced 
my determination of withdrawing immediately from the scene 
of festivity, where we then were, and of taking instant mea- 



sures for the obtainment of redress from my reputed caiumnia* 
tor. Mr. Jones earnestly dissuaded me from such a course, 
reiterated his conviction of the falsity of the slanderous allega- 
tion, and farther said that by adopting the meditated plan, I 
should unavoidably involve him, my friend, the Rector of my 
Parish, in my personal quarrels. This argument had its due 
weight in influencing my subsequent course in relation to Dr. 
Locke for the time, and having afterwards taken the advice of 
two legal friends on the subject, I determined to forgive, and if 
possible to forget, the cruel malignity of the assault which he 
was represented to have made upon my character. The same 
degree of intimacy continued between the Rev. Mr. Jones and 
myself, for many months after the above communication was 
made, and^ny confidence in the sincerity of his friendship was 
unabated, until I was informed that Dr. Locke had declared, 
under the imposing solemnity of an oath, that so far from hav- 
ing been the author of the alleged communication to Mr. Jones, 
he, the Rev. JST. M. Jones, had communicated it to him. Mr. 
Jones had at no time intimated to me that he had derived his 
information from any other source, save Dr. Locke ; I was 
therefore greatly surprised on hearing that he had, without 
your solicitation, given to you the names of two other gentle- 
men as the authors of the calumny, viz : the late Rev. venerable 
and respected Neale H. Shaw, and an esteemed, valued, and 
amiable friend, the late Joshua Estep, Esq., between whom 
and myself, from the commencement of my acquaintance with 
him, to the hour of his death, the most cordial and friendly in- 
tercourse had subsisted. 1 could not call upon either of the last 
named gentlemen to confirm or refute what was alleged of 
them, for they had both passed from this vale of vicissitude 
and sorrow, and entered, I trust, upon those joys which are 
permanent and unalloyed. 

Notwithstanding the Rev. gentleman's most unhesitating as- 
surance to yourself and to me that he believed the above 



25 

charge to be utterly false and malicious, yet he did, at no ve- 
ry distant period, say to my personal and highly valued friend, 
the Rev. F. H. L. Laird, that he did believe me guilty of the 
imputed crime. 

I shall make no comments on the foregoing statement, but 
submit to you the simple facts of the case. 
Very respectfully, 

J. M . 



[No. 4.] 

Certificate of Vestry of " All Faith Parish." 
We the undersigned, members of the Vestry of All Faith 
Parish, do, unhesitatingly, express our confident belief, that 
the statement made by Mr. George Thomas, in relation to a 
conversation which took place between him and the Rev. 
N orris M. Jones, and which has been denied by said Jones is 
strictly true. Our long and intimate acquaintance with Mr. 
George Thomas, his known high character, and well establish- 
ed reputation for integrity, probity and honor, positively forbid 
any other conclusion. 

Given under our hand, this 21st of September, 1834. 

JNO. H. SOTHORON, 
WM. C.BARNES, 
JOSEPH F. SHAW, 
GEORGE G. ASHCOM, 
SAMUEL KEECH, 
ROBERT DAVIS, 
JOHN T. HAWKINS, 
JAMES. E. KILGOUR, 

3 



28 
[No. 5.] 

He that diligently seeketh good procureth favor : but he that see&etfe 
mischief it shall come unto him. — Proy. xi. 27. 

Letter of Mr. George Slye. 

February 28th, 1835. 
Dear Sir — In answer to your request, wishing to be in- 
formed as to the conduct of the Rev. Norris M. Jones, during 
the time that he remained with us as a boarder, and also as 
to all the circumstances connected with the loss of my money, 
I state as follows: — That during the first year he was with me 
I discovered nothing worthy of particular notice ; but before 
the expiration of the second year, his character began to devel- 
ope itself. He evinced a gossiping disposition, professed to 
know every family in his parish for generations back, and even 
to be informed as to their private affairs, and would criticise 
and ridicule those whose kindness and hospitality he frequent- 
ly enjoyed. The ladies of his parish seemed to occupy much 
of his thoughts. His vanity was such, that he pretended to 
believe he could marry almost any lady of his acquaintance ; 
that some were actually in love with him. On one occasion^ 
the Rev. Norris M. Jones informed me that during the time his 
brother Clement Jones boarded with the Rev. Richard H. B. 
Mitchell, he, the said Mitchell^ was in the habit of entering, du- 
ring the absence of his brother Clement from home, a closet, 
by means of a false key$ in which his brother kept his papers 
and wine, and reading his private papers and drinking his wine. 
His propensity to embroil families was strong ; as an evidence, 
he caused a coolness between Mrs. Slye and her only sister, 
Mrs. Billingsley, which continued for several months, and was 
near terminating in a permanent rupture between them, (see 
certificate of Chapman Billingsley.) On one occasion, after 
preaching in the forenoon at All Faith Church, he was drunk 
at my house, and received the sacrament a few days after at 



21 

•said church; this was at the time Bishop Stone first visited 
.our parish. A short time after receiving the sacrament, he rer 
marked to Mrs. Slye and myself, that he was near feigning 
himself sick at the time he was about to receive the sacrament; 
and that he would not have minded it so much, had not Mrs, 
Slye and myself been present. , 

I will now detail the circumstances connected with the loss 
of my money. On the 20th of January, 1831, a letter was 
handed me by the Rev. Norris M. Jones, dated St. Inigoes, 
January 10 th, and post marked Great Mill, purporting to be 
written by a gentleman who signed himself my friend, and 
who said he had in his hands 936 dollars, deposited with him 
by a deceased gentleman, to be paid over to me as executor of 
Col. Thomas Barber, deceased. The said letter was under an 
envelope, directed, Mr. Jones, Charlotte Hall, and not the Rev. 
Norris M. Jones \ and it seems strange to me, at this time, 
that the Rev. Norris M. Jones should have thought a letter 
directed to Mr. Jone3, was intended for him, for there are ser 
veral Jones' living in the district. After reading said letter, I 
remarked to Mr. Jones that as the day appointed for me to be 
at the Great Mill had passed, it was unnecessary for me to go 
down. Mr. Jones replied that I had better go, for it was pro- 
bable the letter writer would hear of my being there, and would 
.meet me. I did go down, and remained for several days, but 
heard nothing of my friend. When I returned home, Jones 
asked me what luck. I told him I heard nothing of it from 
any one. Jones then said 1 would receive another letter from 
the same person. About two or three weeks after, a second 
letter was handed me, by the same Rev. Norris M. Jones, dar- 
ted St. Inigoes, February, 8th, 1831, and post marked Great 
Mill, signed, "A Friend," and under an envelope, directed 'Mr. 
Jones, Charlotte Hall. I went down, and was there the day 
and hour appointed, but as before, heard nothing of my friend 
) had to ride $% miles, the distance from my house to the Great 



28 

Mill. I have a certificate from the Post master at the Great 
Mill, stating that there was no letter mailed there for Charlotte 
Hall, between the ]st of December, 1830, and the 22d Februry, 
1831 — I have also the certificate of the Post master at Charlotte 
Hall, that no letters were received at that office from the Great 
Mill, between the 1st December, 1830, and 22d February, 
1831, which certificates I send you. During- the years '30 and 
'31, 1 collected a large amount of money due the estate of Col. 
Barber, father to my wife, which as collected was deposited in 
a portable writing desk, kept in a locked room. The Revd. 
Norris M. Jones, then boarding with me, professed to take 
great interest in my business, particularly as to the administra- 
tion of Col. Barber's estate; would frequently enquire as to my 
collections, place of deposit, &c. He expressed fears as to the 
safety of the money I collected, and said if I were not cautious 
my negroes would rob me. About the 1st of March, 1831, I 
had in said desk $460 51, with notes of hand and other valua- 
ble papers. About that time, one day whilst we were at din- 
ner, a small servant brought the desk in, broken open, and 
robbed of the money, the notes and papers being left, and said he 
found it at the bottom of the garden, where he had been at 
work. It was not known to any one, except the Rev. Norris 
M. Jones, my wife, myself, and perpaps, a small negro girl, 
where my money was kept. Not a servant on the land, ex- 
cept said girl, and I am not sure she did, knew that there was a 
cent of money in the house at that time; nor did they know 
t v he place of deposit. The said Jones left my house the 
morning of the day on which the desk was found, and did not 
return until the evening of the next day. He said that on his 
way home he called by Charlotte Hall, and was at Mr. Milti- 
mores — Jones, then, as he informed me, first heard of my loss, 
and said that when it was mentioned, Miss Amelia Kilgour re- 
marked that she did not believe it, for where was George Slye 



to get so much money from, which remark Miss Amelia Kit- 
gour denies having made. 

The day before Mr. Jones left home, and the day before the 
desk was found, the said Jones went with a little servant to 
said locked room to draw some cider, saying that he would go 
with her to keep her lips out of the mug, a thing never thought 
of before. A short time after, he returned from the locked 
room with said girl, it was discovered that the barrel was leak- 
ing, and he, Jones, returned alone to stop it. Mr. Jones had 
Jiever been in said room before, not even to keep the lips of a 
servant out of a mug of cider, although he frequently drank ci- 
der from the same barrel, drawn by the same servant. The lit- 
tle girl Phillis who went with Mr. Jones to dra^w cider, being 
the only servant ever permitted to go alone to the locked room, 
was suspected of having some knowledge of the money. When 
first interrogated, she declared that she knew nothing of the 
money ; but after some severe threats she acknowledged that 
she had taken the desk from the locked room at the request of 
negro Charity, a house servant. Phillis however made differ- 
ent statements at different times — Charity was sold on the 
statement of Phillis, who declared soon after that she knew no- 
thing of the money, and was induced by the fear of punishment 
to accuse Charity. After receiving the money for Charity, I 
said in the presence of Mr. Jones that J did not know what to 
do with it; that the money I had lost was under double lock, 
and that was stolen from me. Mr. Jones said that he was sure 
that he could keep it, that he never lost money, and if I thought 
proper he would keep it for me. I thanked him, and handed 
him the money, and continued from that day to deposite with 
•him money as I collected it, and to the amount of $665. Some 
time between the 1st and I Oth of April, 1831, Mr. Jones left 
my house on a visit to the Patuxent, as he said; upon his re- 
turn, the next day, he came to the room in which Mrs. Slye and 
myself were sitting, and said he called by Samuel Keech's,who 
3* 



30 

paid him ten dollars, and that he would go and put it away 
with our money in his library, the place in which he said he 
kept it. In a short time he called me to an adjoining room ; 
when I went, he was standing with a book open in his hand, in 
which there was a one dollar note, and observed it was all that 
was left of our money. I said I did not understand him— he 
replied that some one had taken our money. Mrs. Slye and 
myself evinced some concern at the loss, and I said there was 
some wrong going on. He said I ought to have my servants 
up and examine them, and advised me to sell some of them, or 
they would ruin us, and we should be found some day mur- 
dered in our bed ; he further remarked that whoever got the 
last money I had lost, got the first, and if we would say noth- 
ing about the last loss, he, N orris M. Jones, would make both 
losses good. Mr. Jones about this time owed me 1645 dol- 
lars, if we include the money taken from my desk and the mo- 
ney deposited with him for safe keeping, which sums as before 
stated he promised to make good — and also, the amount of my 
account for board, horse, &c. By payments made at sundry 
times, the sum was reduced to 950 dollars. A week or two af- 
ter he was married he came to my house with his wife and 
stayed all night. In the morning before he came out of his 
bed room, feeling somewhat anxious about the money he 
promised me, and wishing to come to a settlement with him, I 
brought pen, ink and paper into the sitting room and put them 
upon the table. When Jones came into the room he took a 
seat near the table where the pen, ink and paper were, and 
said he expected to receive money shortly and would be able to 
let me have a part of the money promised my son who was 
named after him. I said never mind my son, I will endeavor 
to provide for him as well as I can with my other children; all 
I ask of you is to make good your promise to make good my 
loss. Without a word he drew three notes for value receiv- 
ed, payable in J, 2 and 3 years, amounting to 950 dollars — 



31 

the balance due me as before stated. After executing* the notes, 
he remarked that he thought it probable he should be able to 
pay the entire amount before the first note became due. 

It will be well to remark that during the times I was absent 
from home, in pursuance of the request contained in said let- 
ters, Mrs. Slye had company, and their lodging room was so 
situated with regard to the aforesaid locked room that it could 
not have been safely entered without some of the company 
hearing it. The first sum of money that I lost was taken about 
three weeks from the receipt of the last of the aforesaid letters, 
and the money which I deposited with the Rev. Norris M. 
Jones, disappeared, as I was informed by him, about three 
weeks thereafter. I have no hesitation in declaring, that I 
confidently believe that all the money 1 lost was taken by the 
writer of the aforesaid letters, and that the first sum would have 
been taken long before it was, had an opportunity offered. 

In conclusion, I must take leave to remark that the Rev. 
Norris M. Jones has endeavoured to impeach my veracity, by 
exhibiting a certificate of good character, &c. written and sign- 
ed by me as sworn Vestryman and Church Warden. At the 
time the certificate purports to have been signed, I was neither 
a Vestryman nor Church Warden, as will appear by reference 
io the register of All-Faith Church, and I could not have done 
an act so foreign from truth. I well recollect having refused 
Jones a certificate as often as three times, and if I ever signed 
one, it has escaped my recollection. 

Yours, &c. GEORGE SLYE. 

Certificate of Chapman Billingsley. 

I do hereby certify (as my firm belief,) that the difference 
spoken of in Mr. Slye's certificate to Mr. Thomas, between Mrs. 
Billingsley and Mrs. Slye, was occasioned by the Rev. Nor- 
ris M. Jones. CHAPMAN BILLINGSLEY. 

March 2d, 1835. 



32 

[No. 6.] 

Certificate of the Post-Master at Great Mills. 

Great Mills, Feb. 1, 1833. 
Dear Sir — I received yours of the 21st January, requesting 
to be informed if any letters were mailed at this office for Char- 
lotte Hall, from the first of December to the twenty-second of 
February, 1831. On examination of the account of mails sent, 
I find no letter or letters were mailed between the above-men- 
tioned dates, and that no letters were mailed at the Great 
Mills for Charlotte Hall nearer the time, than one on the 25th 
Nov. 1830, and one on the 28th May, 1831. 
Tours, respectfully, 

HENRY N. KIRK. 
To Geo. Slye, Esq. 

State of Maryland, St. Mary's county*, to wit ; 

On this third day of March, 1835, personally appears Henry 
N- Kirk, before the subscriber, a justice of the peace in and for 
the county and state aforesaid, who after being duly sworn on 
the Holy Evangelist of Almighty God, says that the facts sta~ 
ted in the within letter are just and true to the best of his know- 
ledge and belief. 

Sworn before Charles C. Egerton. 



[No. 7.] 

Certificate of the Post-Master at Charlotte- Hall. 
I hereby certify that there was no letter received at the Post 
-Office at Charlotte Hall, Saint Mary's county, Maryland, at 
which I was deputy post master, and regularly in attendance, 
purporting to be mailed at the Great Mills, in the county and 
state aforesaid, between the dates of the 1st day of December, 
1830,andthe 22d of Feb. 1831. 

Given under my hand this 17th day of March, 1835. 

THOS. C. REEVES. 



[No. 8.] 

Certificate of Messrs. JLshcom, Hawkins, Kilgour, and Soth~ 
oron, Vestrymen of "All Faith Parish" 
We the undersigned, do hereby certify, that we were at Ma- 
jor John T. Hawkins', with Mr George Thomas, a few days 
after the meeting held by the Vestry of All Faith Parish, for 
the purpose of enquiring into certain rumors affecting the cha- 
racter of the Rev. Norris M. Jones. On that day the conver- 
sation turned on matters disclosed at the meeting. When Mr- 
Thomas heard that the Rev. Norris M. Jones had admitted 
that he had made a slanderous communication to Mr. Milte- 
more, and assigned Dr. William B. Lock as his author, he ex- 
pressed great astonishment, and said that such conduct on the 
part of Mr. Jones, to say the least of it^ was unkind and illibe- 
ral towards Dr. Lock ; for to his certain knowledge, he had 
said he heard it from one other person. Mr. Thomas then re- 
peated what Mr. Jones had told him, and it was as follows : — 
During a ride from the church above mentioned, 1st Jan. 1833, 
Mr. Jones observed, that he had been told by a gentleman, 
once a Vestryman of All Faith Parish, now dead, that he had 
seen a letter written to a gentleman, once the Rector of All 
Faith Parish, who is also dead, cautioning him against a cer- 
tain man of the neighborhood who had ruined his daughter ; 

and that he believed the letter writer was a Mr. W. ■ he, 

Mr. Thomas, after reflection, guessed Joshua Estep as the 
Vestryman, and that he, Jones, said yes, he was : after further 
reflection, he guessed the Rev. Neale H. Shaw, as the one who 
had received the letter, and Jones said yes, he was — That Mr. 
Thomas commented freely on the conduct of Mr. Jones, both 
as regarded the manner he, Mr. Jones, expressed himself touch- 
ing said matter, before the Vestry and the communication to 
Mr. M . Mr. Thomas distinctly said that such a com- 
munication was well calculated to cause a permanent difference 



34 

between neighbors, and that such conduct was unchristian-like ? 
and unbecoming a minister of the gospel ; that he had felt dis- 
posed to sustain Mr. Jones until his guilt was proved ; that 
now he had evidence of his unfitness for the ministry, (or Ian- 
guage to that effect,) and was done with him ; that he could 
not consent to subscribe to Mr. Jones again as Rector of All 
Faith Church. 

Mr Thomas further remarked, that he made the communi- 
cation before stated, to us as Vestrymen, and not to be used 
unless for purposes of justice; that if it should become neces- 
sary for the purposes of justice, he was prepared at any time to 
swear to the truth of his statement made to us; that he did not 
wish to appear as Mr. Jones' accuser; that he felt constrained 
by the force of circumstances to divulge the conversation with 
Jones ; that he had never before mentioned it to any one, and 
should not have mentioned it then, except to correct an errone- 
ous impression under which some of them seemed to labour ; 
that he would like for some one of them to endeavor to ascer- 
tain from Jones whether or not he had heard the said slander 
from any one except Dr. Lock. The above was the language 
used by Mr. Thomas, to the best of our recollection. 

Given under our hands, this 18th February, 1835. 

GEORGE G. ASHCOM, Vestrymen, 
JOHN T. HAWKINS, do. 
JAS E. KILGOUR, do. 

(See also No. 16.) JNO. H. SOTHORON, do. 



[No. 9.] 

An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth hia neighbor ; but through 
knowledge shall the just be delivered. — Prov. xi. 9. 

Certificate of Rev. Francis H. L. Laird. 
I do hereby certify that the Rev. N. M. Jones said to me, 
#n the 25th of Sept. 1831, that the Rev. R. H. B. Mitchell was 



35 

imfit to remain in the Standing Committee, and that he was de= 
termined to have him removed. Upon my inquiring his ob- 
jections to Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Jones stated that Mr. M. was 
shamefully deficient in Theological literature, and could not 
be engaged in a conversation on any Theological subject; that 
he, Mr. M., was a man of egregious vanity, which had frequent- 
ly led him to boast of his high descent, and that he had refused 
to pay twenty-five cents, which was his proportion of a porter's 
charge for carrying three trunks belonging to the Rev. Messrs. 
C. F. Jones, R. H. B. Mitchell and N. M. Jones, from John 
Gibson's, Esqr. of Baltimore, to the wharf of the steam boat 
Patuxent, and that he, N. M. Jones, had paid the whole seven- 
ty-five cents and had not been refunded by his brother or Mr. 
Mitchell — That on the above date, while we were on our way 
to his marriage, Mr. N. M. Jones said that he was then, by his 
marriage to Mrs. E. A. Sothoron, about to achieve a splendid 
triumph over her relatives, the Briscoe's. I then expressed 
my hope that he was impelled by love and not by anger to 
marry her, to which he replied that he loved the old lady, but 
that he disliked to be conquered by any person. He then 
changed the subject of conversation. That Mr, Jones, while 
we were walking in Judge Dorsey's garden, on the 2 6 2d of 
^June, 1833, and conversing on the subject of Mr. W — — 's let- 
ter to the Rev. N. H. Shaw, informed me that he had seen that 
letter, and that Mr. W. had employed language in it, which 
would have been sufficiently severe against Mr. B'l., if he, 
Mr. M., had seduced both his wife and daughter. I had 
not seen the letter, and understood Mr. Jones to assert his be- 
lief that Mr. M. had seduced Mr. W's daughter. 

FRANCIS H. L. LAIRD. 
Rector of Trinity Church, Charles Co. Md, 

Parsonage, T< P. Sept. nth, 18S4. 



[No. 10] 
Letter of the Rev. R. Mitchell. 

Chaptico, 2d March, 1855. 
My dear Sir — You desire to know whether I called upon 
the Rev. N. M. Jones,for the purpose of ascertaining whetherhe 
had relinquished all expectation of recovering the Rectorship of 
All Faith Parish. He stated that he had received a communi- 
cation from the Vestry, inviting him to the Rectorship, but that 
under existing circumstances, he was unwilling to accept at 
this time, although he had rather serve in that parish than in 
any other that might be able to give him five times the amount 
of salary. In consequence of this conversation with Mr. Jones, 
I declined the call to the parish which the Vestry had made, 
believing that he still expected to return to the Rectorship, 
and was unwilling he should consider me an obstacle. 
With esteem and regard, I am dear sir, 

R. MITCHELL. 



[No. 11.] 

Certificate of Dr. Joseph F. Shaw< 

! hereby certify, that on Easter Monday, of the year 1833, 
J shewed Mr. N. M. Jones, Mr. W's letter to my father, which 
was said to be the foundation of a report implicating the cha- 

'recter of Mr. JVI- and one of Mr. W 's daughters. Mr. 

Jones read the letter, and declared that there was no such 
allusion contained therein — which is nothing more than the 
truth, for there is no allusion in the letter which can possibly 
be tortured into a foundation for such a report. 

JOSEPH F. SHAW. 

N. B. The letter can be seen by any person who wishes 



37 

[No. 12.] 
Letter of Norris M. Jones to Dr. Briscoe. 

Savona, 22d August, 1834. 

Sir, — You came to my house last Friday, and desired me 
to close my children's account, by note, stating that you could 
pass away the note as cash to the person who holds your 
negro. Supposing you were speaking the truth about passing 
away the note, and as you said it would oblige you, I con- 
sented to give it; although I was not bound to pay those ac- 
counts until the assets came into my hands. Is there ano- 
ther man in the country who would thus have assumed the 
debts of others for the purpose of serving you ? None. And 
how has my kindness been repaid ? By your going the same 
day and sueing me. On your conduct, sir, I make no reflec- 
tions; but leave you to make them yourself. As soon as I 
could have collected the money you should have been paid ; 
but since you have appealed to the law, the law must take its 
course. Perhaps you were not aware that in a court of chan- 
cery a note that is on compound interest, is forfeited as illegal. 
In the note given you on Friday, a prior note of mine is inclu- 
ded, in which the interest is calculated to the 28th of June ; 
and as the last note calls for interest, it is on compound inter- 
est, and therefore illegal, and you cannot recover it. I have 
no objection to paying any just claim you have upon me ; but 
as I said, since you have referred the matter to the law, you 
must abide by its judgment ; for I assure you, I shall leave no- 
thing undone, that the law enables me to do. My advice to 
you is, immediately to withdraw the suit, and what is due you 
I will pay when I collect the money, which will be long before 
you can have any judical decision on the subject — before you 
can get the matter decided judically, your negro will be sold. 
Very respectfully, 

NORRIS M. JONES. 

Dr. Charles LI. Briscoe. 
4 



38 

[No. 13.] 

Letter of Dr. Briscoe to Geo. Thomas. 

Dear Sir, — When I saw you last you requested me to fur* 
nish you with a copy of a letter addressed to me by the Revd. 
N. M. Jones, in relation to a pecuniary transaction that had ta- 
ken place between him and myself. I regret that until now I 
have been unable to comply with your request. In relation to 
the enclosed letter, of which you are free to make what use 
you please, I have merely to remark, that not one of its state- 
ments has the slightest foundation in truth, except that which 
charges me with instituting suit against its author. And to the 
adoption of that disagreeable measure T was compelled by his 
repeated violations of promises of payment of claims against 
his step-children and himself, on the punctual performance of 
which I had vainly relied for the liquidation of a claim against 
me, for which my word was pledged and my property under 
execution. You will observe that his letter is dated the 22d 
August instead of the 22d July, the true date. How he com- 
mitted this inadvertence I cannot say. 
With esteem, your obt. servt. 

CHARLES Ll. BRISCOE, 

[No. 14.] 
Letter of Dr. Joseph F. Shaw to Mr. George Thomas. 

November 1st, 1834. 
Dear Sir — In reply to your request to state to you the 
course of conduct pursued by the Rev. Norris M. Jones to- 
wards my father, and the cause of the difference between him 
and our family : Although it is painful to remember, I will as 
briefly and correctly inform you as my present recollection will 
enable me to do. 
Mr. Jones was elected rector of AU-Faith Parish, in the sum- 



39 

mer of 1829, and though it may be unnecessary to mention it, 
I was myself a warm advocate and supporter of his election, 
and used all my influence to effect it. My father was then re- 
siding in the parish, and did not desire the appointment. From 
that time till the winter of 1830 there was nothing remarkable 
in his conduct, except that he seldom visited and never, I be- 
lieve, extended to him, my father, those courtesies which might 
have been expected between ministers of the gospel situated as 
they were towards each other. Whether he felt hurt by this 
apparent slight I know not — I never heard him complain ; on 
the contrary, he ever spoke of Mr. Jones affectionately, and 
with praise and hope for his usefulness in the parish. Some- 
time in the month of February, 1830, Mr. Jones preached a 
sermon in the school room at Charlotte Hall, against slander, 
from St. John, 8th chapter, part of his text being, "They say 
unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the ve- 
ry act," the last words of which he laid great stress upon and 
very frequently repeated. After sermon my father, Mr. M. 
and myself were conversing about the sermon, and my fa- 
ther observed "that he was sorry Mr. Jones had selected that 
text to preach his sermon from, that there were many others as 
appropriate, and that such sentences were not well suited to, a 
young minister and such a congregation." Calculated rather 
to do harm than good, and mentioned an instance in which he 
thought he had done himself an injury in the estimation of his 
parishioners, (alluding to some who had expresed their dis- 
gust, in very strong language to him.) I know that these re- 
marks did not arise from ill will towards Mr. Jones, and that 
my father had in them no sinister motive — they may have been 
repeated again but I am not certain they were. A few days af- 
ter this a poor woman, whom I was attending, desired the ser-« 
vices of the church. Mr Jones was not then ordained — my 
father was her choice and attended. The same evening we 
called to see Mr, Jones at Mr. Slye's, and pleasantly spent thd 



40 

evening with him and his brother. The sermon, I am sure, 
■was forgotten, for my father observed to me as we were riding 
home, that he wished he had thought of it, that he might have 
said something to Mr. Jones on the subject. Shortly after this 
visit Mr. Jones sends a short note to my father forbidding him 
to perform any parochial duties in the parish whatever, on pain 
of being reported to the bishop, and the next Sunday in course 
preaches the same (as he asserts) sermon, and afterwards, with 
great manifest passion, abused in the harshest terms, those 
who had criticised it. 

As soon as I heard of this, I went to see Mr. Jones for the 
purpose of obtaining the sermon, and at the same time to know 
if his remarks from the pulpit alluded to me, because I had 
spoken freely of the doctrine which I thought the sermon in- 
cluded. Being taught always to venerate the truth, it was a 
new idea to me that it was evil or slander to tell it, and there- 
fore wished to read the sermon, that I might correct any erro- 
neous impression I might have received. Mr. Jones refused 
to lend it, but told me I might read it in his room, as he never 
lent his sermons out. He then told me he had no allusion to 
me in his remarks whatever, but that he meant my father, the 
Rev. Neale H. Shaw, that he believed him actuated by envy, 
hatred and malice, and all the bad feelings of the Pharisee. 
That he had calumniated him for the purpose of injuring his 
usefulness, and ousting him from the parish, and that his per- 
forming parocheal duties was for the same purpose. 

On my return home, I mentioned the result of my interview 
with Mr. Jones to my father. He was surprised and deeply 
hurt. He had spent nearly his three-score years and ten in 
close contact with the world, with unspotted character, and 
more than twenty, in active service as a minister of Christ. 
And then, in his old age, to be held up by a younger brother in 
the ministry, and a stranger in the parish, from the sacred 
desk, and before a congregation to whom he had often minis- 



41 

tered, as an aged hypocrite, old in iniquity and vice, (bis 
words) was an insult and injury which would require a super- 
human effort to forgive or forget. It was the injury which 
first separated us as a family from Mr. Jones, and forced upon 
us the conviction that he was not under the influence of a good 
spirit. 

We were commanded not violently to resent it, but to let 
him alone, as his future conduct would shew what he was. 
How different this conduct of Mr. Jones from that pointed out 
by that good book, whose precepts should be a "lamp to our 
feet and a light to our path." St. Paul tells him, "Rebuke not 
an elder, but entreat him as a father" — Our Saviour says, "if 
thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his 
fault between him and thee alone ; if he hear thee, thou hast 
gained thy brother — but if he will not hear thee, then take 
with thee two or three more, that in the mouths of two or 
three witnesses, every word may be established; and if he ne- 
glect to hear them, then tell it to the church." 

Solomon in his wisdom advises, "to admonish a friend,, for 
many times it is a slander ; and believe not every tale, there is 
one that slippeth in his speech r but not from his heart; and 
who is he that hath not offended with his tongue." "Admon- 
ish thy neighbor before thou threaten him," &c. 

In Leviticus, God himself commands, " thou shalt rise up 
before the hoary head, and honor the face of the old man, and 
fear thy God, I am the Lord." 

They had an interview sometime after this, and my father 
declared to Mr. Jones that nothing, which he had said or done, 
proceeded from any ill will or wish to injure him ; that he had 
spoken of his sermon as he thought, and ever should think ; 
and repeated his observations. After this, although he did not 
forget, yet he seems in some measure to have forgiven, as he 
contributed to his support as Rector, after his election. Mr. 

Jones still continued to preach occasionally his before men-* 

4* 



tioned slander sermon, but so altered in tone, manner and em- 
phasis, that I should not have known it unless for the text- 
for the express purpose, as he declared to some of his friends, 
to stop the Shaws' mouths. Previous to the meeting of the 
Convention in June, 1831, Mr. Jones called to see my father 
to get a certificate to the bishop, necessary to obtain full orders. 
My father was then in a very feeble state of health, and at 
times very excitable — 'When Mr. Jones was about to take 
leave, he said, "Well, Mr. Shaw, the reasons you will not give 
me a certificate are, that I have not been to see you often 
enough, and Mr. M. is a vestry man." My father looked wild 
with astonishment, and said, "don't go out of my house with 
a lie in your mouth, don't tell that lie — I call you to bear wit- 
ness, Mrs. Slye, that I gave no such reasons — I said J am too 
weak to write, and if I were not, I know nothing to recom- 
mend him as a minister." Mr. Jones carelessly observed, 
that it was of no consequence to him, he had merely asked it 
by way of compliment. 

Before Mr. Jones' return from the convention, my father was 
consigned to the grave. Mr Jones called to see the family and 
informed them that he intended to preach another funeral ser- 
mon, and at the same time took the opportunity to insult their 
feelings. After this, I called to see the Rev. gentleman, and 
requested him not to preach the sermon, as that duty had been 
performed by the Rev. Mr. Laird in his absence. 

What I have here stated is strictly true, and no news to Mr. 
Jones. I feel that I am but doing justice to my father's me- 
mory, to his family, and myself, as it was known that there 
was a difference between them and Mr. Jones, to let the cause 
of that difference be known. 

With respect, I remain, 

Your friend and obedt. serv't. 

JOSEPH F. SHAW, 

To Mr. George TY^mds, Patuxent. 



43 

[No. 15.] 

Certificate of George G. JLshcom. 
I do hereby certify, that the intimation in the pamphlet of 
the Rev. Norris M. Jones, with respect to the amount of the 
annual subscription of Mr. George Thomas for the support of 
said Jones, as Rector of All Faith Church is incorrect. 

GEORGE G. ASHCOM, 

Vestryman. 



[No. 16.] 

Letter of Col. Sothoron. 
House of Delegates, March 19th, 1835. 

Dear Sir— Yours of this morning is received, in answer I 
have to say, I well recollect that shortly after the meeting of 
the Vestry of All Faith Parish, at which it was said, the Rev. 
Norris M. Jones had stated that he was informed a certain Mr. 

M. had seduced the daughter of Mr. W , by Dr. Locke, and 

no one else. You replied that Mr. Jones had not stated the 
truth, for he had before informed you that he had received that 
information from Mr. J. Estep. Soon after this I had a con- 
versation with the Rev. N. M. Jones on the subject, and I asked 
him the direct question whether he had ever stated to any in- 
dividual that he had received the above information, in relation 
to Mr. M. from any other person than Dr. Locke ? His words 
in reply, 1 do not recollect, but he left me under the convic- 
tion that he admitted he had received it from another or oth- 
ers. I afterwards informed you upon this authority, that f: 
knew of my own knowledge your statement to be correct. 
Yours, respectfully, JOHN H. SOTHORON. 

To Geo. Thomas, Esq. 



44 

That Norris M. Jones pays no regard to the truth 
whenever he may deem it expedient to utter a falsehood, 
will be still more evident to the reader by the perusal of 
the following certificates : 

Firstly — Those given by Messrs. Wm. H. Sothoron 
and John H. Sothoron — which prove that he propagated 
a false charge against the latter. 

Secondly — That given by Mr. Chas. C. Egerton, and 
the annexed false receipt — which convict him of the de- 
sign to deceive his parishoners by false representations, 
and the deliberate preparation and delivery of a writing 
for so vile a purpose. 

And, Thirdly — The certificates of Messrs. Chas. C. 
Egerton and Joseph F. Shaw — which show that he de- 
liberately denied to Mr. Egerton that he had received 
information from either of these persons, of whom Mr. 
Shaw was one, when in fact his application to Mr. Eger- 
ton was prompted by the information which he had re- 
ceived from Mr. Shaw. 

Certificate of Wm. H. Sothoron. 

I do certify, that the Rev. Norris M. Jones told me some 
time in August last, that John H. Sothoron was the only one 
of the vestry of All Faith Parish who had acted like a man : 
that he, John H. Sothoron, had declared, that he would ride 
through the parish with a cow skin in his hand and put it to 
rights. WM. H. SOTHORON. 

October 15th, 1834. 

Certificate of John H. Sothoron. 
A report became current in Charlotte Hall District last fall, 
that I had stated that I would take a cow hide in my hand and 
ride through the district for the purpose of putting the people 



45 

to rights. Mr. N. M. Jones visited me during its currency,, 
and expressed his regret that such a report had obtained circu- 
lation and was stated to rest on his authority, adding that he 
never had made or authorised any such statement. I have on- 
ly to add the report was totally false, as I have before publicly 
proclaimed it to be. JOHN H. SOTHORON. 

Annapolis, March 17th, 1834. 



Certificate of Charles C. Egerton. 

I hereby certify, that on the fourth day of December, 1832, 
the Rev. Norris M. Jones, late rector of All-Faith Parish, 
in which I at that time was vestryman, called to see me, and 
that after being informed by me that there were many of the 
parishoners who had refused to subscribe any thing for his 
support, and others who had and would reduce their, subscrip- 
tions, he asked me how much /would give, naming the sum of 
five dollars — to which enquiry, I replied : Mr. Jones, were I 
able I would give more ; he immediately proposed that I should 
sign fifteen dollars, that he would give me a receipt for ten dol- 
lars, that he wished to match some of those fellows : to which 
proposition, J without reflection replied, very well sir, and he 
prepared and handed me the receipt, which I now hold : not 
having the subscription list at hand : I had time for reflection, 
when I came to the conclusion that as sworn officer of the 
church I could not practice any deception upon the parishon- 
ers ; consequently I did not then subscribe, nor have 1 since, 
for his support. 

Given under my hand this 2d day of Feb. 1835. 

CHARLES C EGERTON. 
False Receipt. 

Received of Charles C. Egerton, 10 dollars on his account 
of his subscription towards my salary, for the year ending Sep-. 
tember 15th, 1833. NORRIS M. JONES, 

December 4th, 18S2. Rector of All-Faith Parish. 



46 

Certificate of Chas. C. Egerton. 

I hereby certify, that sometime within the last twelve months 
the Rev. Norris M. Jones called on me in the presence of Mr. 
William C. Barnes, for the contents of a certain instrument of 
writing, purporting to be a copy of the evidence of Mr. George 
Slye against him. which was exhibited by me to three gentle- 
men in my room, namely, Dr. Jos. F. Shaw, Mr. James Milte- 
more, and Mr. William C. Barnes. Concluding that Mr. Barnes 
must have been his author, I intimated as much, and told Mr. 
Jones to go to his author for the desired information. Mr. 
Barnes immediately demanded of Mr. Jones to do him the 
justice to say that he had not been his author, which demand 
Mr. Jones instantly complied with. 

Mr. Jones then voluntarily remarked that he had heard it, 
but from neither of the three gentlemen present at the time of 
the exhibition of the aforesaid instrument; two days after 
which call, I asked Dr. Jos. F. Shaw if he had ever mentioned 
the circumstance to any person, and to whom, when he in- 
formed me he had, and that to Mr. Jones himself. 

Given under my hand this 11th day of Oct 1834. 

CHARLES C. EGERTON. 

Certificate of Joseph F. Shaw. 
I hereby certify, that on Easter Monday of the year 1833,1 
did in the course of a conversation 1 had with the Rev. Mr. 
Jones, inform him that there were other charges against him 
than what he had spoken of, and which other charges I had 
heard read, and that they were in the possession of Mr. Eger- 
ton. I did not mention what they were, though he earnestly 
solicited me to do so. Mr. Jones and myself were not on 
terms of either friendship or intimacy; but considering that the 
charges above alluded to were intended for the public eye, I. 
did not deem the communication as in any manner violating con* 



47 

iidence — And I also certify that I was one of the three persons 
before whom the above mentioned charges were read. 

J. F. SHAW. 



zmimm&ww;'. 



^iiiy* 



mn'n ! ?^:<^wA! 






rHSwWMJ 



mmt 



Mimfi. 









a J& ~ /& &m 



mKfii 



K/wmm 



mmmsm 



TOMUH 



FAtVAAAi 






WWW 






/> 6 A « 



•S«W 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2006 

PreservationTechnologiei 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVAT.Ot 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



MJU 



\ v 









IaMA^AAaAAAa 







&AAUTY n ii i 


fM" 






' w; WftwWWi 


1 





AaaA 



h mmm 



MS 



ImK 



AAaaM 



AaAa 



lAMAMi 1 ! 






^^^»m 






aha 



